[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_specs] Re: Support for asynchronous events

[Mika Kukkonen]

On to, 2002-11-14 at 16:37, Peter Badovinatz wrote:
(...)
> No, I'm not suggesting another name for asynchronous events, but we will
> need to consider how going forward with descriptions will need to
> differentiate.  A problem will be that when you use the word 'event'
> some people will think "POSIX Event Logging" and others will think
> "Asynchronous Events".

I do not see this as a problem. To me word 'event' is neutral; it
certainly does not bring "POSIX Event logging" to my mind as a first
thing. So my feeling is that the "problem" you are describing does not 
exist.

Other opinions?

--MiKu